tatty bojangles (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
apocalypsos) wrote2013-01-14 11:35 am
apocalypsos) wrote2013-01-14 11:35 am
Oscarwatch: Argo
I feel like when I write these responses to the Oscar-nominated movies, I kinda want to go, "Let's put the racefail to the side." Not because it's not important, but because really, with each of these movies, their respective racefails have been thoroughly discussed, and so I feel like me pointing out that maybe Ben Affleck should have hired a Latino lead because the real guy was Latino, and that maybe the portrayal of the Iranians was a bit harsh considering they had many, MANY valid reasons to be pissed off at Americans (although hostage-taking is definitely not something to be condoned, and terrorism is not the appropriate response to anything) feels like I'm just repeating stuff that's already been said a hundred times by the time it gets to me. And the fact that we've been put in a position to discuss racefail so very often this awards season is disconcerting, to say the least.
... anyway.
I thought the movie was really great, well done, and strongly acted all around. It's not completely historically accurate, I know, but then I love historical movies and I can't think of many that are precisely right in every detail, both large and small. And I'm okay with a little bit of juggling of details regarding the plot if it's not a major overhaul to the point of being unrecognizable, or more piling onto the racefail issues. (That's why I'm a bit disappointed that I haven't gotten a chance to read a book on the rescue just yet. I usually try to before I see movies like this so I know what got changed). I do wish they'd made more of an emphasis of just how heavy of an influence the United States had on what was going on there politically, but I suppose the fact that the movie even acknowledged that it *might* have had a hand in stirring the shit over there is an accomplishment.
I have this thing when it comes to historical movies set in more modern times, if you get the production design just right, you might not get a Oscar nomination -- they always do tend to go for the costume dramas and historical recreations pre-1900s -- but I will love you forever. I think half of the reason that I feel like Ben Affleck deserved a Best Director nod is that the movie FEELS like it's 1980-81, with the camera work and the lighting and costumes and hair and makeup. Everything is so freaking perfect. Every little detail is wonderfully done, which I suppose makes it that much easier to act within, sort of like acting in a different world.
As for the acting, I do think that he probably should have gotten a Latino actor for the lead role rather than taking it himself. It's a small thing and there are plenty of great Latino actors out there, so it's not like it's asking a lot of him. That said, he's not a bad actor. He's never been a bad actor. He's been in bad movies, like nearly everyone in Hollywood has, but when he's put to the test he can hold his own and then some. (Forgive me, I do get a little protective of Ben Affleck for some reason.) I do think he has a little of Tarantino's need to be in front of the camera in an acting position when he's directing a film, but unlike Tarantino he doesn't suck. Still, though, I can understand why he didn't get an acting nom for this movie. He's good in it, but the five lead actors nominated this year did better work.
For the supporting actor nomination, I probably would have picked Bryan Cranston for a number of reasons. He's been on "Breaking Bad" for a while now, snapping up Emmys, and it's his time. He also does better work in the film than Alan Arkin, I thought. I do like Alan Arkin, but he does have a habit of almost playing himself, and he's already won an Oscar for that. It also doesn't help that he reminds me a lot of my grandpa. He looks and sounds a little like him, just enough to throw me off every time he's on screen.
I don't think it's going to win Best Picture. I started watching "Les Mis" last night and I think it's going to take Best Picture in its sleep. I'm only thirty minutes into it and I keep wondering how the director didn't get a nomination, either. (Honestly, when I looked over the directing category last night, the first name I would have eliminated was Spielberg's. I still have to finish "Lincoln", but what I've seen of it, while very good, is not doing much for me at all.) I'll be happy if "Les Mis" wins over "Argo" just because it seems to be the better film (I'm finishing it later), but I'll be sad because goddamn it, I really want someone else I know in real life to watch the stupid thing so it's not just me all excited about how awesome it is.
... anyway.
I thought the movie was really great, well done, and strongly acted all around. It's not completely historically accurate, I know, but then I love historical movies and I can't think of many that are precisely right in every detail, both large and small. And I'm okay with a little bit of juggling of details regarding the plot if it's not a major overhaul to the point of being unrecognizable, or more piling onto the racefail issues. (That's why I'm a bit disappointed that I haven't gotten a chance to read a book on the rescue just yet. I usually try to before I see movies like this so I know what got changed). I do wish they'd made more of an emphasis of just how heavy of an influence the United States had on what was going on there politically, but I suppose the fact that the movie even acknowledged that it *might* have had a hand in stirring the shit over there is an accomplishment.
I have this thing when it comes to historical movies set in more modern times, if you get the production design just right, you might not get a Oscar nomination -- they always do tend to go for the costume dramas and historical recreations pre-1900s -- but I will love you forever. I think half of the reason that I feel like Ben Affleck deserved a Best Director nod is that the movie FEELS like it's 1980-81, with the camera work and the lighting and costumes and hair and makeup. Everything is so freaking perfect. Every little detail is wonderfully done, which I suppose makes it that much easier to act within, sort of like acting in a different world.
As for the acting, I do think that he probably should have gotten a Latino actor for the lead role rather than taking it himself. It's a small thing and there are plenty of great Latino actors out there, so it's not like it's asking a lot of him. That said, he's not a bad actor. He's never been a bad actor. He's been in bad movies, like nearly everyone in Hollywood has, but when he's put to the test he can hold his own and then some. (Forgive me, I do get a little protective of Ben Affleck for some reason.) I do think he has a little of Tarantino's need to be in front of the camera in an acting position when he's directing a film, but unlike Tarantino he doesn't suck. Still, though, I can understand why he didn't get an acting nom for this movie. He's good in it, but the five lead actors nominated this year did better work.
For the supporting actor nomination, I probably would have picked Bryan Cranston for a number of reasons. He's been on "Breaking Bad" for a while now, snapping up Emmys, and it's his time. He also does better work in the film than Alan Arkin, I thought. I do like Alan Arkin, but he does have a habit of almost playing himself, and he's already won an Oscar for that. It also doesn't help that he reminds me a lot of my grandpa. He looks and sounds a little like him, just enough to throw me off every time he's on screen.
I don't think it's going to win Best Picture. I started watching "Les Mis" last night and I think it's going to take Best Picture in its sleep. I'm only thirty minutes into it and I keep wondering how the director didn't get a nomination, either. (Honestly, when I looked over the directing category last night, the first name I would have eliminated was Spielberg's. I still have to finish "Lincoln", but what I've seen of it, while very good, is not doing much for me at all.) I'll be happy if "Les Mis" wins over "Argo" just because it seems to be the better film (I'm finishing it later), but I'll be sad because goddamn it, I really want someone else I know in real life to watch the stupid thing so it's not just me all excited about how awesome it is.